Judith Sargentini, Rapporteur. – Mr President, I didn’t see this coming. I thought we had company. But, as my report is targeted to the Council as a whole, I’ll just get started.

Colleagues, today we are debating the state of the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights in Hungary. Tomorrow, President Juncker will present his State of the Union. I want to ask you colleagues today: what is the state of our Union? What shape are we in?

Mr President, I think I should stop now and start again because I don’t think this is a good start to the debate.

Judith Sargentini, Rapporteur. – Mr President, let me start again and let me welcome Prime Minister Orbán, who I wanted to shake hands with, but he turned up late for the debate.

(Murmurs of disapproval)

Today, we are debating the state of the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights in Hungary. Tomorrow, President Juncker will present his State of the Union, and I asked you before – I ask you now again, colleagues – today, what is the state of our Union? What shape are we in? Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union reads: ‘the Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to a minority’. It continues: ‘these values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non—discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail’. By signing up to the Treaty on European Union, all the Member States made a commitment – an obligation to defend, respect and promote these values, regardless of political differences.

Are all the Member States fulfilling these commitments? I’m afraid not. The Hungarian Government has effectively silenced independent media. It has put academia on a leash, and future generations will not learn to appreciate critical thinking. It has replaced independent judges with those with a closer tie to the regime. It has rules on which churches are allowed to worship and which churches are not. It makes life miserable for NGOs that provide services to citizens in need, such as homeless people, migrants and refugees and marginalised groups like Roma. These are services that – to add insult to injury – lighten the work of local governments and are often financed through European Union funding. On top of that, individuals in the government have enriched themselves, their family members and their friends by means of public funding from European taxpayers’ money.

The report that is before you today comprehensively lists the actions that, together, represent a clear risk of a serious breach of the values of our Union. Unfortunately, nothing has improved since this report was voted on in June. On the contrary, this summer, one of the last independent news channels changed ownership and, from one day to another, became the mouthpiece of the government. The propaganda tax on NGOs got through Parliament, and whether the Central European University can continue to function in Budapest is still a big question.

Since 2010, the European Parliament has been urging the Commission and the Member States to act. They did not do so. And it’s particularly disappointing that the Member States turned a blind eye to the structural erosion of the rule of law in a fellow Member State. It is not the Commission alone that is the so—called ‘guardian of the Treaties’. We are all the guardians of the Treaties.

(Applause)

We all have the task of protecting the rights of European citizens to live today in a society, as Article 2 reads, ‘in which pluralism, non—discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail’. It is therefore our duty to act, under the very same Treaty that Hungary decided to ratify. The Civil Liberties Committee, after consulting four committees of this House, concluded that an Article 7.1 procedure is inevitable. I do not think lightly about triggering that Article, but if this House fails to use this emergency brake, we fail to deliver to European citizens what was promised to them in the Treaty.

Colleagues, the time has come to make an important choice. Will you let a government violate the values upon which this Union was built without consequences, or will you ensure that the values of this Union are more than just words written on a piece of paper? Colleagues, I count on your support.

Karoline Edtstadler,President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, let me assure you that the Presidency and the Council as a whole attach the greatest importance to upholding democracy, the rule of law and human rights. There can be no compromises on the rule of law, democracy and human rights. These are our common rules, and they have to be protected.

At the Council we will have the opportunity to discuss these fundamental issues at the rule of law dialogue on trust in public institutions, to be held at the General Affairs Council in October. According to Article 7, the procedure can be triggered by one third of Member States, by the European Parliament, or by the European Commission. Subsequently the Council examines the proposal and hears the Member States in question. Today, we are at the beginning of the debate in this plenary and a vote in the European Parliament.

The Council has not yet considered these matters. Therefore, the Presidency is not in a position to present a position of the Council. We will listen attentively to the debate, and to the Prime Minister of Hungary.

Frans Timmermans,First Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, fortunately, the Commission is in a position to give its position on this issue and I want to start by thanking the rapporteur, Ms Sargentini, for her engagement in preparing this report.

The report covers a wide range of measures in different areas taken by the Hungarian authorities over the last few years which give rise to serious concerns from the perspective of our common EU values. In this context, let me stress that democracy in our Member States, in our European Union, cannot exist without the rule of law and respect for fundamental rights. They go together. These values characterise a society in which individual freedom, pluralism, non-discrimination and tolerance prevail. Sadly, the Commission shares the concerns expressed in the report, in particular, the concerns regarding fundamental rights, corruption, the treatment of Roma, and the independence of the judiciary.

As regards fundamental rights, the report highlights important issues relating to civil society, academic freedom and media pluralism, which are crucial for the good functioning of democracy. Civil society is the very fabric of democratic societies and is threatened by measures taken by the Hungarian authorities that lead to a shrinking space for civil society organisations. As a consequence, the Commission has referred Hungary to the Court of Justice regarding its law on foreign-funded NGOs and has launched an infringement procedure on the Hungarian legislation criminalising assistance for asylum seekers. Moreover, the Commission is analysing the compatibility with EU law of Hungary’s recent law on the special tax on education, training and media campaign activities in the area of migration.

The Commission has also referred Hungary to the Court of Justice regarding the Hungarian higher education law for non-compliance with EU law, including academic freedom.

As regards the treatment of asylum seekers, the Commission has referred Hungary to the Court of Justice for non-compliance with EU law regarding its asylum and return legislation. Let me also stress that EU legislation provides that Member States have to ensure that the basic needs of persons in transit zones are covered and that they are treated in a humane and dignified manner. This includes providing food to asylum seekers staying in border zones. I would say that this is the humane – or, should I say, the Christian – way of doing things.

(Applause)

The Commission shows zero tolerance towards fraud against the EU budget and carries out regular audits to assess the functioning of the national management and control system, based on regularly updated risk management. If deficiencies are identified, adequate corrective actions are carried out.

Through the supervisory role of the Commission, Hungarian operational programmes for EU structural and investment funds have been the subject of the highest amount of financial corrections in 2016 and 2017 of all the EU Member States. Moreover, the European Anti-Fraud Office has opened investigations where there was sufficient suspicion of fraud and other irregularities.

On 13 July, following up on a proposal from the Commission, the Council issued Hungary with country—specific recommendations, stating that it should reinforce its anti-corruption framework to strengthen prosecutorial efforts and improve transparency and competition in public procurement. These recommendations are based on the 2018 European Semester country report for Hungary, where the Commission identified challenges related to the effectiveness of its national anti-corruption framework in preventing corruption, curbing favouritism in public administration, transparency and its access to information regime, and the prioritisation of fighting high-level corruption via effective investigations and prosecutions. The Commission will monitor and assess any measures taken by the Hungarian authorities to address these recommendations.

The Commission launched infringement proceedings against Hungary in May 2016 for discrimination against Roma children on the grounds of their ethnic origin in the field of education. Hungary entered into a constructive dialogue with the Commission and has subsequently adopted legislative amendments to prevent segregation and to desegregate.

Challenges concerning the functioning and independence of the judicial system in Hungary also require close monitoring. In particular, as raised in a 2018 European Semester country report, more could be done to better balance the powers between the President of the National Office for the Judiciary and the National Judicial Council.

The Commission is also the guardian of the Treaties, I say to Parliament. When it comes to the application of EU law and the respect of the EU’s fundamental values, the Commission intervenes based on accurate and thorough legal analysis, it focuses on concrete national measures and it engages in a dialogue with the authorities. The Commission is using all the instruments at its disposal to address concerns, in the manner the Commission considers most effective. Let me remind you: it was the Commission which invoked the Article 7 procedure as regards a clear risk of a serious breach of the rule of law by Poland on 20 December 2017. This was an unprecedented step in the history of our European Union.

Unlike the European Parliament, the Commission has a right under the Treaty on European Union to launch infringement procedures and, in the case of Hungary, has launched many value-related infringement proceedings. It is also using other instruments, including audits and investigations relating to the use of EU funds and actions through the European Semester, the EU annual cycle of economic policy coordination.

The Commission remains committed to upholding the fundamental values of the Union and will continue to closely monitor the situation in Hungary in this regard. The Commission will not hesitate to take further action if necessary. My promise to you is that we will be relentless.

Manfred Weber, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, Mr Prime Minister, this is the first time the European Parliament has discussed an Article 7(1) procedure against a country. An important decision lies ahead of us and, yes, we feel a need for self-assurance, when we have this discussion ahead of us, about the European way of life. Let me share with you some of my concerns and, after the Prime Minister’s intervention, let’s bring it back to what is really of substance on the table: what we are discussing today.

We are discussing, for example, something which has a lot to do with freedom. In May this year my Group honoured Lech Wałęsa, a member of the PPE family who is still actively campaigning in Poland in favour of our Civic Platform colleagues, and he spoke about his life. He spoke about the essence of what Europe believes in: about freedom, about freedom of expression, media freedom and freedom of science. With his words in mind, my Group and I cannot understand why the Central European University in Budapest is in a critical situation and can no longer award a US diploma. Freedom of science is a fundamental value for the European Union.

(Applause)

A second point I want to mention is the fact that, in a democracy, a majority in society governs. That’s clear but, for us, in a properly functioning state a lively civil society is also important. I want transparency about the funding sources for NGOs, I want to know who the internet giants in Russia are who are financing bodies in the European Union. But to have an atmosphere in a society in which government critics and NGOs have a problem in continuing their work is not what we, as the PPE Group, believe in.

(Applause)

There is a third point I want to mention. We may have different ideas on solving the migration issue, but one thing must be clear: if we say generally that you need to be afraid about Muslims, and we attack a religion generally, then we are doing the job of the jihadists who want to create a clash within our societies. The European ideals of freedom of religion and the separation between states and churches are the principles on which we invented human rights – not Christian rights – on this continent.

(Applause)

And now about Article 7(1). The PPE Group has always supported the debates here in the House with regard to Hungary. We worked constructively with Roberta Metsola in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs on the preparation of the document which is on the table. We have consistently supported Viviane Reding in previous times and Frans Timmermans today in relation to infringement procedures. And I have to say that, in the past, Hungary was always ready to compromise. I must tell you that Fidesz was even ready to change the constitution of the country to take account of some of the considerations of Viviane Reding’s Commission and to address them in the constitution of Hungary.

My political family will finally decide this evening about our voting list for tomorrow, but I have to tell everybody that without a readiness on the part of the Hungarian Government to resolve the current issues – the legal concerns which are on the table – the start of a dialogue based on Article 7(1) could be necessary.

As we are talking about dialogue, I want to underline that it is my wish that the dialogue in Council could start. Council members are publicly attacking each other, they are defining each other as political opponents but, as yet, in the European Council, the Article 7 procedure in respect of Poland has not reached reach the level of our political leaders. So what I would ask for is an end to public accusations among our political leaders. Let them put this on the agenda of the next Council and be honest with each other. I would expect this from the Council.

(Applause)

And we all must decide: that’s clear. We all must decide between egoism and partnership, between nationalism and Europe, between dogmatism and unity. These are at stake and there is a broader picture ahead of us.

For myself, I must say I never had the need to decide because I was always a convinced European and it is also in my DNA that I want to be a bridge-builder. I want to try to achieve a compromise, I want to reach an agreement: that is part of my political DNA. And, with this in mind, I want to add a last point to the current discussion on the table. It’s about the party political dimension. We have been talking about media freedom, and journalists in Bratislava have told me that, since the killing of Ján Kuciak, a lot of colleagues are cautious about their articles. They don’t want to be the next. And, colleagues, demonstrators in Bratislava have showed their concerns on the streets, they have no trust in their Government. So I hope that, among the pro-European democratic parties, we can be united in the upcoming discussion in this House, in fighting for media freedom in all regards and not only when it concerns one country or one discussion.

(Applause)

There is a second example I want to share with you. We had mass demonstrations this summer not in Budapest but in Bucharest, with violence on the streets. The President needed to intervene in these demonstrations and had to ask the police to be more careful. There is a Government misusing a majority to protect the already-sentenced Socialist Party leader. We all agreed, including the Socialists, to put this on the agenda in the next plenary, and again I hope that everybody is ready to fight against corruption in all regards and not only in one specific case that is on the table.

(Applause)

Yes, Europe needs self-assurance and we have to defend our ideas and our common values, in all our political families, and we have to use the platform of the political families to convince each other that we have a future only if we stick together. In this spirit, the founding fathers of Europe created the European Union: always to reach out the hand; to build bridges at critical moments; and to stick to the rule of law in every situation.

Ryszard Antoni Legutko, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, I have a feeling that there is an overpowering tediousness in a debate like this one. It has been rehearsed so many times. Nothing new. Another instalment of an attack on their democratically elected governments. The Fidesz government has had massive support for the last decade. You said it is not an attack on Hungarian society, but on the Hungarian Government. Well, somebody elected this government. It was not Snow White and the seven dwarves. If you do not like it, just abolish the election and appoint somebody from outside to be the viceroy of Hungary. I think Mr Timmermans will be more than willing to take the job. And after that you do that, do the same with Poland. That will solve all the problems.

The resolution that you have read – at least some of you must have read it – is so biased. To say it is biased is an understatement. It is exclusively based on the information from anti-Fidesz groups, and the argument of the majority of the Hungarians on the government has been simply ignored, and this is a regular practice here. This has been done in the case of Poland too. The replies of the government had been thrown into the wastebasket. They are just not taken into account.

Take the case of the Central European University. This school was established as a foreign institution with certain privileges, and the government wants to restrict these privileges. What’s wrong with that? It has nothing to do with teaching, research, academic freedom or freedom of thought. In many EU countries the function of foreign academic institutions is very restricted, far more restricted than the current Hungarian law provides. Why is it that you tolerate certain arrangements and certain practices in your own countries and you demand that the Hungarians change their law? This is absolutely unacceptable.

The good side of this is that all this entire spectacle is counter-productive. In my country after each spectacle – I cannot say ‘debate’ – of Poland-bashing in the European Parliament, the support for my government conspicuously increases. So I suspect the same will happen in Hungary. So, Prime Minister Orbán, it may very well be that the authors of this resolution are your unwitting or perhaps clandestine supporters.

Guy Verhofstadt, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, you and Mr Orbán can be reassured that I will not go so far as the late John McCain, who on the floor of the American Senate called Mr Orbán ‘a neo—fascist in bed with Putin’. Those are not my words; they have been said before. Also, I will not come back to all the violations that have been put in this report. Let’s be honest between each other, the inconvenient truth is that, under these circumstances, it would be impossible today, Mr Orbán, for Hungary to join the European Union. That is the reality of today.

(Applause)

What I would really ask you to do – because I like Hungary and I certainly like Hungarian literature and culture – is anyway to stop saying ‘Oh, that’s an action against Hungary, an action against the Hungarian people’. You are not Hungary, you’re the government of Hungary and the leader of a political party and Hungary is far more and far more eternal than you are.

(Applause)

My intervention is not to you, it is especially to our EPP colleagues, and I have one plea, which is that hopefully this evening they will follow their conscience when they decide on this. I know that’s not always easy to do. We are talking about somebody of the family, and I can tell you that I had the same problem at a certain moment. That was the moment when we had the dilemma to push out of our family Jörg Haider of the FPÖ. We did it in the end, also based on counsel, because we thought that more important than size and power are in fact principles and values.

The second reason is for European reasons, Manfred. What we are living today is the survival and existential battle over the survival of the European project. If Mr Orbán is publicly siding with Salvini, openly discussing the disruption of this European project, well, we need that not to happen in the coming years.

My last argument and reason is mainly because, and I will recognise it – that doesn’t happen often – that the European Union has been based on Christian democratic principles, beliefs and energy for decades. We all know them: Adenauer, Schuman, Monnet, De Gasperi. I want to use the words of one of these giants, of Robert Schuman, and I will quote him: ‘Christianity teaches us equality of all men without distinction between race, colour, class or profession [...] the dignity of each human person in protection of his individual liberty and with respect for his individual rights by practicing brotherly love to all’.

So I want to plead to you, my Christian Democratic colleagues, to recognise that the way Schuman looked at Christianity is in many ways exactly the opposite to the divisive, narrow and destructive actions and opinions of Mr Orbán. Dear colleagues, please for once see that he is the seed of discord that will ultimately destroy our beautiful European project and please, together with us, stop this nightmare this evening in your Group.

Nigel Farage, on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Mr President, I would like to say to Mr Orbán: thank God, there is at least one European leader prepared to stand up for his principles, his nation, his culture and his people. In the face of such extreme bullying, ‘thank God you’re there’ is all I can say.

I am sure that for Hungarians of a certain age today will have brought back many dark memories. You’re here with a show trial where a bunch of political non-entities get up and point the finger and scream, enjoying themselves with their afternoon hate, and the chief prosecutor, the commissar that comes from the unelected government, has the audacity to lecture you on democracy.

You don’t know what you’re talking about. The fact that you’ve got 50% of the vote in your country and that no one has ever voted for Timmermans or can’t remove him seems to have passed him by. He’s also telling you ‘you’re not getting your judicial appointments right, you’ve got to change things’. This is the man who is one of the bosses of the European Commission that appoints Martin Selmayr, driving a coach and horses through all the rules that exist here.

What is really happening here, Mr Orbán, is that they are just updating the Brezhnev doctrine of limited sovereignty. There’s no point pretending in this union that you’re independent, there’s no point pretending you run your own country. And Article 7 is the new method of adopting that. They want to strip you of your voting rights, they want to stop giving you European funding, and all of it because you have the audacity to stand up to George Soros, the man who has poured USD 15 billion all over the world in trying to break down the nation states and to get rid of our traditional forms of democracy. In Hungary he spent money to promote illegal immigration into your country and you, quite rightly, have stood up to him and closed him down. I wish we all did the same.

Mr Orbán, you keep saying you want to stay a member of this European Union, but it is not just your country that has been insulted today. You’ve been insulted today. It is time to be more logical. Come and join the Brexit club. You’ll love it.

Sophia in ’t Veld (ALDE). – Mr President, I’m delighted to hear Mr Jurek’s ardent plea to uphold Article 2 of the Treaty, because – I say to Mr Orbán – the funny thing here is that you claim that the European Union wants to impose things on your country, but your country was the first country to ratify the Lisbon Treaty. And I’m sure that you read Article 2 before you put your signature to it. So all we are doing is keeping you to your word. And you know what? The Hungarian people want you to keep your word, because they want to remain at the heart of the European Union. But then you have to play by the rules and respect the rules.

Debates like this one today are about a very difficult situation, and some people are getting rather desperate about how to get out of that situation, but I think this is just a difficult phase in a bigger process of the European Union coming of age as a community of values and a community of law. And we will get out of this situation.

Maybe we should do that by de-dramatising and de-politicising. You put a lot of drama in your speeches, Mr Orbán, but I actually prefer the approach of Ms Sargentini, which is very factual, fact-based and accurate. Her report is a very accurate picture of the state of play of democracy and the rule of law in your country, and it is not a pretty sight.

You talk about the Hungarian people but – you know what, Mr Orbán – all of us here have voters, and my voters ask me why we have to respect the rules when the Hungarian Government doesn’t have to. Why are we giving Mr Orbán EUR 87 million a week in order to destroy the European Union? Why are they getting away with it? Well I have difficulty answering my voters. It is not just your voters we’re talking about, Mr Orbán, it is all the citizens of Europe. So we have a duty to hold you to the same rules and standards as everybody else.

And then, finally, the real message of today’s debate is not about pointing the finger at Hungary or criticising Hungary. The strong message of the European Parliament is that we are not willing to let Hungary go. We didn’t walk the road to here, and bring Hungary on board as a member of this family, in order to let go. Hungary is a member of this family, and we will fight to get Hungary back on track and give Hungarian citizens the European values that they are entitled to, like anybody else. That is what we will be voting on tomorrow.

James Carver (NI). – Thank you, Mr President, for hearing my point of order. I rise as one of the four Members of the European Parliament who are from the Roma minority, and could I honourably remind Members that Lívia Járóka, one of the Fidesz MEPs, is one of the other four Roma MEPs. She sits on the right of politics and not all Roma are necessarily on the left of politics, just like all people within society, and all this talk of anti-Roma ... Mr Orbán has a Roma MEP who sits as a vice-president of the European Parliament.

Roberta Metsola (PPE). – Mr President, we are here today to show that politics must be about principle and values. That means taking tough but necessary decisions. Of course we can choose to close our eyes, but too much of Europe’s history is marked by terrible decisions taken in the name of expediency. We know that appeasement never works, we know that our values are worth more than just the paper they are written on, and we know that from some things, we cannot look away.

Europe is a hope, it is a promise, it is an ideal, and I see Europe as the pillar of light sandwiched between Trumpian clouds and Putinesque shadows. Our European way – of freedom, compassion, fierce personal liberty, passionate equality, the rule of law, free thought, free movement and a free press, and the protection of minorities is a global symbol of enduring courage. We should be proud of that. The litmus test of a European nation is how well these values are nurtured and protected. If, despite everything, despite all the calls to change direction, despite all the extended hands of friendship, our values remain under serious threat, as they are in Hungary, then we must act. We must choose the politics of hope over the politics of fear and cheap populism. We must protect the European way, always. And so, in the name of all those who sat in this Chamber before us, in the name of all those who believed and believe still, tomorrow I shall stand up for Europe.

Branislav Škripek (ECR). – Mr President, colleagues, this debate here is about much more than the fate of one nation. We are shaping the future of the European Union here and there are complaints about the Hungarian institutions, Hungarian rule of law and so on. So yes, let us settle those questions then.

But some would like to see Hungary and other central European countries under control, obediently following the wrong directives of Brussels given from above according to the explanation of the common rules, but with different biases. It was mentioned here that we are united in diversity, so how has it come about that you want to kick out someone for being so different? We have some different opinions, yes. After 40 years of Communist oppression, we are entitled to shape the EU project as well. We experienced totalitarianism already; we experienced the dictating of opinions. There are so many wrong things with Europe today: unrealistic federalisation, disrespect of the natural family of one man and one woman and of human dignity, more opposition to the freedom of speech. There are examples in EU Member States. Prime Minister Orbán is no threat in comparison to the deformed version of democracy that the left-wing liberals are preaching to the EU states. It is a false gospel, and I ask you: let us deal with that, please.

Jussi Halla-aho (ECR). – Mr President, there are problems in Hungary when it comes to questions like corruption, the situation of national minorities, and so on. Many of those problems are inherited from the past, and they are in no way unique to Hungary. These shortcomings are not the reason why Hungary has become the prime target of the Commission and this Parliament.

The real sin of the Hungarian Government is that it wants to protect the country from damaging mass immigration from the Third World. The Hungarian Government and the majority of Hungarian voters do not wish to repeat the catastrophic mistakes we have made in Western Europe. I very much sympathise and support that position. Unfortunately, liberal immigration policies and multiculturalism have become the European value in this House. Almost anything else can be forgiven, but not questioning that value. This is why we are having this debate.

Frank Engel (PPE). – Mr President, we should probably be glad that the Prime Minister found his way here because I hear, Prime Minister, that you posted a video message on Facebook that you were going to Brussels to protect Hungary.

This is not, of course, Brussels, but since Brussels is all that embodies the nefarious influences upon Hungary for you, I suppose that between here and Brussels there is no difference. Europe has to be Brussels, and Brussels is not good for the country. Because it would impose migration, because it would impose certain functioning measures and certain democratic standards, probably because it would also be looking after its money.

And honestly, I am sick and tired of seeing EUR five billion go every year essentially to make a few people close to you richer, every year, and having for the rest, the Hungarian economy – which is probably glad that 700 000 people have left over the last 10 years because otherwise they would be in the country and unemployed. The only reason why unemployment is where it is, is not the prowess of the government; it is the fact that people have voted with their feet.

Now otherwise, what happens with the money? Enormous billboard campaigns against Brussels, against the Commission, against Parliament, against the Commission President, against Soros on the sidelines – but that is not really relevant in the Brussels context, apart from the fact that we are all apparently doing the bidding of Mr Soros. The only thing I know is that I never had a study grant from him. Other people apparently did. I never even shook the man’s hand. Others have accepted favours.

I noticed one thing and that is that today you are even more behaving like the leader of a sect than ever before. It’s only about religion, the right form of family, the nation, and shutting the other out.

Among the many mails that we got, Prime Minister, there was one from Pastor Ivanyi, who I believe once officiated at your wedding. I do not think he is less good at religion and less good at Christianity than you are, and he is not feeling comfortable any longer. And I am not comfortable with this discourse because the Christian democracy that I want to belong to is a Christian democracy that accepts the secular state. I don’t want to become part of a sect and I don’t want to be treated like I was facing a sect. What you are doing in Hungary is dangerous, but the Hungarians seem to vote for you. Let them go on doing that; we will vote for something else tomorrow, at least as far as I am concerned.

Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, allow me to begin by thanking Prime Minister Orbán for being here. Prime Minister, this is not the first time we have discussed in Parliament such problems in one of our Member States; and the fact that you are here to face the critics deserves some respect. You certainly have courage.

That said, I cannot deny that I am concerned, and have been for some time, about what I am hearing and reading in reports from your country. We have unfortunately been forced to discuss the situation in Hungary a few times here in Parliament; and we are all, at this stage, extremely familiar with the issues: the ‘stop Brussels’ campaign and general anti—EU rhetoric that was used in the election campaign earlier this year; the use of an anti-immigrant poster, borrowed from UKIP, in the same election campaign; the accusations of limiting the freedom of the press in Hungary; and the moves to introduce legislation that could close the Central European University in Budapest.

These are not actions we would associate with a European People’s Party Head of Government and it is disappointing that we are having to discuss these issues with you here today. To me, many of your actions are not in line with the principles and values of our political Group.

Frankly, Mr Orbán, what I want today are straight answers and responses from you on all of these issues, not generalities like you gave us in your opening speech. My constituents and grassroot members are rightfully bringing these concerns to me about your party’s place alongside mine within the PPE. Your answers are keenly awaited.

Anna Maria Corazza Bildt (PPE). – Mr President, today I am proud to stand up for democracy. This debate is not about condemning, sanctioning and accusing. It is to reach out to the Hungarian people, to engage in an open dialogue and to uphold our shared values and their rights as Europeans, based on facts and rules. Democracy is more than winning elections. Our union is founded on human rights, civil liberties and freedoms.

Prime Minister Orbán, high—flying rhetoric and a denial of reality does not help us to move forward together. You and I shared an inspiring moment of history at the funeral of Helmut Kohl, the great statesman who united Europe and shaped a Union based on liberal democracy and Christian values. Instead, splitting East and West and pursuing hard nationalism undermines our Union. You do not represent Helmut Kohl’s heritage, nor the salvation of Christian democracy.

Christianity is about respecting human dignity and helping the most vulnerable in need, not sabotaging any European solution on migration. There is no illiberal democracy. Everything else is regimes. Now you want to export your model, spreading the acute Salvinitis virus that is affecting Italy, lining up with populists in France, Poland, the Swedish Democrats and even Putin. Bad company!

Rest assured, we in the PPE Group are not going to give up our identity, nor lose our compass. Please, Mr Orbán, I truly hope you will find yours again. Citizens are watching. Either we stand up for our values or we are dragged down in the populist meltdown.

Julie Ward (S&D). – Mr President, I would like to say to Mr Orbán that I have been in Hungary many times, both before I entered politics and in the past four years during my term of office. Coming from a civil society background, I can feel the pulse on the streets, and I was on the streets of Budapest in July for Pride, a civil society action. I did not see you joining the march, Mr Orbán. I did not see you standing shoulder to shoulder with the Hungarian people of all ages, the families with their children, who came out in force to stand up for gender equality and non-discrimination. On that day we had to march with police protection because there was a fascist counter-march.

You have created this state of xenophobia and creeping fascism. Fear of the other stalks your land. The racists, the misogynists and the homophobes are emboldened by your illiberal, anti-European, regressive values. I love Hungary, Mr Orbán, I love its people and its culture, and it’s not Hungary which is the problem – it’s you, who have forgotten what it means to be both European and a Christian.

Luke Ming Flanagan (GUE/NGL). – Mr President, I have to say to Mr Orbán: I am no fan of the European Union, but you completely and utterly disgust me. You talk in pejorative terms about how you don’t want your country to turn into a country of migrants. Well, you’ll really hate me then, and my children, because both my children’s parents – myself and my wife – were migrants. Their four grandparents, nine out of the 10 of their uncles and six out of the six of their aunts.

If they, in the countries that they went to, had to face what you’re doing to immigrants, well, it wouldn’t be a good thing: signs put on the doors of people that helped them; punishing educational institutes who support them. Yet, still, my wife is a Kelly, one of the most common immigrant names. Yet, still, we have a Kelly in here who describes you as having courage and says how he respects you. I don’t think the Flanagans and the Kellys and the immigrants of this world would respect you. I’ll say it again: I don’t like the European Union but, as far as I’m concerned, you are dirt.

Frans Timmermans,First Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, having listened to the debate, I think there are a few things we have to clarify. First of all, the Commission operates on the basis of the Treaty on European Union. The Treaty was signed by sovereign nations and was adopted in sovereign nations. If you’re a member of a club and you sign a treaty and want to be a member of the club, you apply the rules. You cannot use the argument of democracy to ignore the rules. If you have a democratic majority, you can change the rules, you can negotiate a change of the treaty, but you can’t violate the rules, nor can you ignore the rules.

Everything I put in my report at the beginning of this debate, and all the concrete issues I have put before you are based in fact. They are issues we have with the Hungarian Government on the basis of, in our view, rules that are not being respected. We will pursue this in a dialogue with the Hungarian Government and we will take the Hungarian Government to court if we believe that they violate the rules that were agreed at European level. That is a task of the Commission. Whether I was elected to this position or not is neither here nor there. What we do is we respect the Treaties and this role was given to the Commission in the Treaties. The Treaties are the fundament upon which we operate.

I just want to add one issue to that: when we criticise the Hungarian Government and its legislative measures, we do this very precisely. I have to say – to then say that criticising laws and criticising the Government would amount to criticising a nation or a people, frankly speaking, Mr Orbán, that’s the coward’s way out. If you make these laws and if you stand for these laws, stand for them, and we will have a debate and dialogue and hopefully we will resolve them, but don’t try to deflect attention from criticism about the actions of your Government by saying that those who criticise the Government attack your nation or your people. That’s the coward’s way out.

One final remark: the emptiness of the arguments on this side need to be compensated by screaming and shouting. Volume will not compensate for the emptiness of your arguments, sir. Finally, I want to reiterate that the Commission believes that the only European way is through dialogue. If the dialogue doesn’t deliver the results, we will go to court, and I hope that Hungary will stick to its line to execute court rulings. That is the rule of law in Europe. Europe was created on the basis of rights of individuals. We’ve had a past – sometimes – of dictatorship through democracy. That is why we can never ignore the rule of law, nor fundamental rights, and using the argument of democracy against the law and fundamental rights is going back to a European history none of us want to see again.

(Applause)

Karoline Edtstadler,President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, having followed the debate attentively, I would like to reiterate that the rule of law, democracy and respect for human rights are cornerstones of the Union. Therefore, these values are at the heart of our concerns.

As the Presidency, we will act as an honest broker, and I can assure you that the Presidency will closely follow the vote and will pay particular attention to all views expressed today. As I stated at the beginning, there will be no compromises regarding democracy, the rule of law and human rights.

Judith Sargentini, Rapporteur. – Mr President, some of the speakers asked why this report is based on sources from outside of the Union; some called it ‘cut and paste’. I will explain why. It’s because within the Union there are no reports being written that are benchmarks on fundamental rights and democracy per Member State. For instance, the Fundamental Rights Agency in Vienna, one of our agencies, is not allowed to do that. And why is that? Because Member States in the Union have been shying away from looking at the state of their country when it comes to democracy, fundamental rights and the rule of law.

Some speakers asked why Hungary? Why not Romania, Slovakia, Malta? Well, I’ve been here since 2009. If you look at my track record I have been supporting every debate that deals with rule of law in a Member State, and I can tell you that Romania is going to be on the agenda next time if you all agree with a proposal that the Greens have made. And I know that the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs is going to visit Malta and Slovakia next week to look into the issues around the murder of journalists and corruption. I think that is important. But two wrongs do not make a right, and that’s the mistake a lot of people here are making. If you point to a mistake by somebody else, it doesn’t compensate for the mistakes you make yourself. I think we should keep that in mind.

Now, if you, as a representative of a minority grouping, manage to break through a glass ceiling, good for you. It doesn’t mean that everybody else in your society is able to follow you through the glass you’ve broken, and it is that possibility that society needs to create because, in the end, what is a government? A government is a service provider to its people – all its people – and a government that is elected with such an enormous majority has extra responsibility to bring along all its people. That is what Article 2 is about: people. Article 2 is about respect for human rights, including everybody, and Article 2 is not about nepotism. Nepotism is not a European value.

I ask the House to vote in favour of this report. Tomorrow Commissioner Juncker will talk about the State of the Union. Well, this is a decisive moment for the state of our Union.

Cristian-Silviu Buşoi (PPE), in writing. – The European Union is grounded on values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, and the rule of law, and on respect for human rights, to which all Member States have freely subscribed. As a convinced defender of our common values, I am profoundly concerned about the recent threats to what binds together, represented by the cruel murderers of journalists in Malta and Slovakia, the questionable judicial reforms in Poland, the threat to the rule of law in Romania, by a ruling party led by a politician who has been sentenced to prison, and the current state of democracy in Hungary.

With regard to the latter, Ms Sargentini’s report sets out in detail the multiple actions taken by the Hungarian Government in recent years that have a negative impact on the Union’s image as a whole and could jeopardise our international relationships in the future. Activating Article 7 TEU would highlight the fact that European Union belongs not to its leaders but to its citizens. Regardless of our political affiliation, as Members of this Chamber we have to stand united in defending our electors’ explicit attachment to our values, which are appreciated worldwide, and in seeking further solutions for those of us who are, unfortunately, straying from those values.

Antanas Guoga (PPE), in writing. – Mr Orban, in April last year when you were in the European Parliament, you stated that you wanted to correct the Union and to reform it because that was the only way to regain people’s confidence. Why don’t you start with yourself first?

A year after that discussion in Parliament, we see that the situation in Hungary is getting worse. The report lists 12 serious issues which threaten the rule of law, including the functioning of the constitutional and electoral system, the suppression of freedom of expression, freedom of religion and academic freedom, and conflicts of interest, to name just a few of them. It seems that the only actual ‘EU value’ which you accept and follow is EU funding. You want to get the money but you don’t want to play by the rules. What kind of business deal is that?

We, the EU MEPs, have to stand up together for EU values: we have to protect them because the protection of EU values means the protection of EU citizens, including, in this regard, Hungarian citizens. Mr Orban, when will you have had enough of ruling Hungary using communist-type practices?